|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, he did it again! (Only WORSE this time!)
"S o r n i" writes:
Bill Z. wrote: "S o r n i" writes: Bill Z. wrote: Hey dimwit, what do you think "sorry about getting confused" meant? I snipped more than I thought this time, but the *first* time (your lies notwithstanding), you were quoted correctly. In this case, I snipped too much, but what I claimed you said was, by your own admission, actually your opinion, and your opinion was 100% wrong. Regardless of snipping, you can't even read. Rick wrote something and you replied as if *I* wrote it. Deja vu all over again. (And just because I applauded what he said doesn't mean I then somehow "own" the words. Like you need to be told that!) Hey moron - you agreed 100% with what the other moron said, and are now trying to deny that. Typical of you fools. If you want your idiotic posts to be read, you might avoid top posting (which is considered bad form, and in your case your top-posted text was part of what would normally be the line saying "X wrote.") Bill "you never DID answer about the 'neutral nerds' who also told you that you're incorrect" S. Well, the one or two people who sort of agreed with you were wrong (possibly they didn't see the original post.) A couple raised points that were additional comments independent of what we were discussing. Regardless, I answered the points being raised, and it is not necessary to respond to each and every post to do that. Bill -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
Ads |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, he did it again! (Only WORSE this time!)
Bill Z. wrote:
"S o r n i" writes: Regardless of snipping, you can't even read. Rick wrote something and you replied as if *I* wrote it. Deja vu all over again. (And just because I applauded what he said doesn't mean I then somehow "own" the words. Like you need to be told that!) Hey moron - you agreed 100% with what the other moron said, and are now trying to deny that. A lie. I *STILL* agree with what Rick wrote; the only point is that HE WROTE IT (you replied as if *I* did). Typical of you fools. If you want your idiotic posts to be read, you might avoid top posting (which is considered bad form, and in your case your top-posted text was part of what would normally be the line saying "X wrote.") Now you're really grasping, Zaumbie. I learned to not top-post years ago, and most certainly never did in this pathetic excuse for a thread. Modifying the "X wrote:" isn't top-posting; nor is stating something for the reader's understanding before posting new content. (And shouldn't your holy color-coded crapper allow you perfect comprehension of who said what anyway?!? Sounds like it just confuses you!) All someone has to do is look at Rick's very well crafted flame of you. I then posted a reply (basically saying "well done, ol' smokey"), and then you replied to MY post but trying to answer Rick's arguments (and addressing him as me!). All you gotta do is say you ****ed up (which is obvious to anyone), but you're incapable of it apparently. Bill "enough of this; I actually ride a bike" S. |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, he did it again! (Only WORSE this time!)
|
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, he did it again! (Only WORSE this time!)
Rick Onanian writes:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:35:14 GMT, (Bill Z.) wrote: Hey dimwit, what do you think "sorry about getting confused" meant? I It meant nothing considering all of the dancing that followed it. Also, stuff like: Face it Sorni, you are a loser. You even lose arguments with yourself. is generally a proof that an included apology is 100% meaningless. It was quite obviously not a snipping error: It was a snipping error, and if you had half a brain, that would be obvious. If you let a newsreader quote the text, and snip full lines, you'd get what was posted. Sorni's "X wrote" line got snipped because he filled in so much text between "wrote" and the following colon that I noticed only his addition as I cut out irrelavant crap. So Sorni himself contributed to the problem. Surely "(nothing snipped 'cuz it's just so damned good!!! " is not a statement worth keeping in a reply, and that's what I intended to snip. Hint guys - don't try to be excessively cute on attribution lines - it makes the attribution easy to miss. If you turn most of a line into fluff, don't expect anyone to read the fluff, and anything next to the fluff will probably not be noticed as well. Maybe the problem is that you don't know how to operate attributions, and depend entirely on your newsreader's color coding; then it would be pretty easy to get confused, Hey moron, my newsreader color-codes posts, but shows all quoted text in the same color when composing replies. And I do know how to handle attributions - in the single mistake I made, I simply edited the post quickly. What I quoted, however, did in fact express Sorni's opinion, as he stated as much. As to "an appology 100% meaningless," Sorni does not deserve an appology, only a correction, which I did in fact post. After all, he merely quoted someone else to say what he wanted to anyway, being too lazy to make up something on his own, and his attempts at being excessively cute contributed to the problem. Besides, he owes me about 30 apologies and I have yet to see one. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, he did it again! (Only WORSE this time!)
"S o r n i" writes:
Bill Z. wrote: "S o r n i" writes: Regardless of snipping, you can't even read. Rick wrote something and you replied as if *I* wrote it. Deja vu all over again. (And just because I applauded what he said doesn't mean I then somehow "own" the words. Like you need to be told that!) Hey moron - you agreed 100% with what the other moron said, and are now trying to deny that. A lie. I *STILL* agree with what Rick wrote; the only point is that HE WROTE IT (you replied as if *I* did). Hey slimeball, you said you agreed with that idiot Ric, and then complain when I wrote: + Sigh. What a moron. Sorni must also think that if you try a track + stand and fall off the bike, you "chose" to fall. After all, it is + all "controlled by your brain." If you agreed with him, then you must in fact think what I said you think (and neither of you two had an answer for what I said, hence the smokescreen about attributions.) Face it, you are both idiots. You also ignored my last sentence in the post, "Consider the above a reply to the other recent posts from you idiots as well." I made it damn clear I was not replying just to you. Bill -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, he did it again! (Only WORSE this time!)
Bill Z. wrote:
"S o r n i" writes: Bill Z. wrote: Hey slimeball, you said you agreed with that idiot Ric, and then complain when I wrote: + Sigh. What a moron. Sorni must also think that if you try a track + stand and fall off the bike, you "chose" to fall. After all, it is + all "controlled by your brain." If you agreed with him, then you must in fact think what I said you think (and neither of you two had an answer for what I said, hence the smokescreen about attributions.) Face it, you are both idiots. You also ignored my last sentence in the post, "Consider the above a reply to the other recent posts from you idiots as well." I made it damn clear I was not replying just to you. Rick blasted you about your obvious NON-typo (or rather, your denial of it). Your reply then whimpers about ME. You've lost so much emotional control that you can't even tell who you're arguing with. It's just Usenet, Bill. It's not that big a deal. I truly wish I'd never noticed your original mistake (only did because it invoked MY user name). I was really very light-hearted about it -- after all, it was just a "fun" topic not something "serious" -- until you reacted so freaking defensively. One last time, all you had to do was admit you left a few extra words (the "Sorni says:" attribution with no corresponding text) OR that you replied to wrong post and just didn't snip enough. That would have ended it. Bill "but NOOOOOOOOO" S. |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, he did it again! (Only WORSE this time!)
Bill Z. wrote:
It was a snipping error OUR LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE CAN NOW END! Bill "are those angels I hear singing?!?" S. |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, he did it again! (Only WORSE this time!)
"S o r n i" writes:
Bill Z. wrote: "S o r n i" writes: Rick blasted you about your obvious NON-typo (or rather, your denial of it). Your reply then whimpers about ME. You've lost so much emotional control that you can't even tell who you're arguing with. It's just Usenet, Bill. Only on usenet would two complete and utter idiots like you and Rick make a big deal about a trivial typo. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, he did it again! (Only WORSE this time!)
Rick Onanian writes:
Rick Onanian writes: So, what _did_ you mean by "Sorry about getting confused.", and why do you think that it was obviously not an apology? It meant that I missed the two or three words at the start of a line indicating that it was an attribution line, which could have been avoided if I read the text more carefully, to see if there actually was something worth keeping on a line that primarily consided of Sorni's mindless crap. You really ought to invest in a spell checker, Bil...you've written "rediculous", "irrelavant", "appology", and a few others I saw while reviewing this thread. Do you think I'm going to waste time fixing my erratic typing on short replies to you two morons? You morons aren't work the effort of running the checker. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
Bicycle Roadside Assistance Clubs? | Ablang | General | 2 | November 12th 03 09:52 AM |
Who is going to Interbike? | Bruce Gilbert | Techniques | 2 | October 10th 03 09:26 PM |